To be notified of new postings, e-mail me.
We also have a paid subscription blog for families interested in more detailed analysis of China's program. Due to the sensitive nature of these articles, they are available by subscription only. (http://www.research-china.org/blogs/index.htm)

Tuesday, April 08, 2008

Gone, Baby, Gone

I recently caught up on a movie that I have been intending to see for a while, Ben Affleck's "Gone, Baby, Gone". IMDb outlines the movie in this way:

When 4 year old Amanda McCready disappears from her home and the police make little headway in solving the case, the girl's aunt Beatrice McCready hires two private detectives Patrick Kenzie and Angie Gennaro. The detective freely admit that they have little experience with this type of case, but the family wants them for two reasons - they're not cops and they know the tough neighborhood in which they all live. As the case progresses, Kenzie and Gennaro face drug dealers, gangs and pedophiles. When they finally solve the case, they are faced with a moral dilemma that tears them apart.

The issues confronted by the characters of the film are ones the Chinese adoption community is also beginning to confront: What is in the best interest of the child when trafficking or kidnapping is involved? Is it better to keep children in China with birth parents that may lack financial resources to raise them, or allow them to be adopted by financially secure parents in another country?

The power of "Gone, Baby, Gone" is the light it shines on our propensity to judge others. "My sister [Elaine] is unstable; she's on crack and a danger to my niece," judged Amanda's uncle. She probably was, but as Casey Affleck's character points out, none of that matters. "Does it make you feel better? Telling yourself you did it for the right reasons? That you took her to be saved from her own mother?"

How many of us adopt recognizing that even though we will be taking a child from her birth country, her heritage, her culture, all of that is right because "we're just trying to give a little girl a life."

What should be our response, as an adoption community, when we learn that China's children are purchased by the orphanages? Do we sit in judgment, comforting ourselves by believing that any family that would give up their child for money doesn't deserve to be her parents anyway? When we as a community are confronted with growing evidence of trafficking, and in some cases kidnapping, to obtain children "for better homes," do we rationalize this away, or do we demand it be stopped? Casey's character states it most succinctly: "It wasn't your life to give. Elaine is her mother. If you thought she was a bad mother you should have gone to Social Services. Short of that she's her mother and that's where she belongs."

Casey's character is then told to go home and wait 30 years, that he would see more clearly how the world is in that time. Since he hadn't already called the police, the antagonist confronts Casey with words that have been considered at one time or another by many adopting families concerning improprieties found in various international adoption programs, including China's:

"Deep inside you you know it doesn't matter what the rules say. When the lights go out and you ask yourself, 'Is she better of here or better off there?' you know the answer! And you always will. You can do a right thing here, a good thing. Men live their whole lives without getting this chance, you walk away from it, you might not regret it when you get home, you might not regret it for a year, but when you get to where I am I promise you will. I'll be dead, you'll be old, but she will be dragging around a couple damaged tattered children of her own, and you'll be the one that has to tell them you're sorry."

But it is a false premise. One can't see the future, one can't know another's fate. Certainly people like Oprah Winfrey would argue that the conditions one is raised in does not determine the kind of person one will be. Casey's character recognizes that fact:

"You know, maybe that will happen. And if it does, I'll tell them I'm sorry and I'll live with it. But what's never going to happen, and what I'm not going to do, is to have to apologize to a grown woman who comes to me and says I was kidnapped when I was a little girl and my aunt hired you to find me, and you did, you found me with some strange family. But you broke your promise and you left me there. Why? Why didn't you bring me home? Because all the snacks and the outfits and the family trips don't matter. They stole me. It wasn't my family. And you knew about it, and you knew better, and you did nothing. Maybe that grown woman will forgive me, but I will never forgive myself."

Many adoptive parents hear echoes of their own child's voice in these words.

The antagonists in "Gone, Baby, Gone" were entering a deal with the devil: To allow parents to be judged outside the bounds of the law is a Pandora's box that few parents should want opened. It might allow members of my family, for example, to judge me as a danger to my children because I don't subscribe to the religious principals that my family feels have eternal consequences. Might they not view the consequences of my parenting to be as dangerous as Elaine's drug use? Perhaps. But do we as a society want others to make those kind of judgments?

Ultimately, Casey's character decides in favor of the law: There is a way to protect children. The law speaks against kidnapping a child, even if it is felt to be in the best interests of the child. Whether it is the law of the town, or the International Law of the Hague Agreement, it is the law that all of us must respect. "I did what I did for the sake of the child. Alright, for me too," responds the antagonist. I appreciate his impulse, but I reject completely his actions.

85 comments:

Anonymous
said...

My husband and I are waiting for a referral (LID of March 2006). We chose to adopt from China because 1) we watched friends struggle through the domestic adoption process (birth mother backed out upon birth of the child) and 2) we believed that China had adequate safeguards in place to ensure that the children available for adoption had truly been abandoned and had no chance of being adopted by a Chinese family (either in China or expatriate).

We have struggled to find reliable information about the current situation in China (while our agency assures us that there are still many more children in need of homes in China than there are families able to adopt them).

Are you advocating for prospective adoptive parents to withdraw their applications? Or, only accept a referral for a special needs child? I see no other way to place pressure on the Chinese government to crack down on baby trafficking, orphanage directors preferentially placing children with international couples (rather than domestic) for the increased fees, etc. Do you?

I can only tell you what I know. I emphasize that this is not my opinion, but what I KNOW to be facts in China at this time:

1) Some of the largest orphanages in China are currently offering large incentives to birth families and finders to bring children to the orphanages. These rewards are more than the average rural family makes in a year.

2) Nearly all of the orphanages in China have waiting lists of families inside China willing to adopt healthy children.

These two issues should create an ethical dilemma for adopting families: Children are being purchased for adoption, and domestic families are being denied access to these same children.

I do believe that these issues are minimized with the SN children, because demand for these children are much less with domestic families.

I am not sure you have the option to switch at this point, but perhaps a letter indicating your preference for a SN child would work.

In your article and your comment, you make two huge assertions: 1) that orphanages are paying for babies and 2) that there are long waiting lists for domestic adoption at many SWI.

You consider these to be facts or things that you have personal knowledge of. But until you can show us your proof, they are merely assertions as far as I am concerned. And when you make the kind of charges that you are making, I think you need more than that.

If you wish to be taken seriously, then you need to reveal what you know and let us be the judge. While I respect much of what you have done, I have serious problems with the survey that you did awhile ago that seems to be your main proof that there are waiting lists to adopt at many SWIs.

If you have something else, let us see it. Let us judge for ourselves if this is something widespread or even credible.

The charges of baby-buying is being investigated at this time, and I have been told not to discuss specifics. Buy I am sure it will come out in the near future.

As far as the waiting lists, it is easy for people such as yourself to criticize my survey, yet to date no one has offered another way to obtain accurate information. Do you think that asking the CCAA about this, or calling the directors directly will result in more accurate information? One is naive that thinks so. The information gathered in my survey is by far the most accurate reflection of the state of the China program in 2006. To dispute the numbers and conclusions is a simple matter: Take another survey of the same orphanages and present alternative data. Until this is done, one's objections are based simply on a desire not to accept the data.

I don't think one defends research by saying in effect, it may be bad, but it's the only thing out there. You are asking people to make family planning choices based on what could be bad research.

When I read about your attempts to survey, I was struck by what an "American" approach you took to this. Be very direct and to the point. Do it all over the phone instead of trying to arrange for a visit, which is probably what most Chinese families do. Have the caller identify herself as being from a different province.

I have a feeling that directors you surveyed may have given you bad information because they either didn't take the inquiry seriously or just thought it was plain odd.

I have participated in research to try to uncover discriminatory lending practices. I posed as part of a married couple seeking a mortgage. We went to the mortgage company--didn't do it over the phone. And we were well-trained in what the questions should be, how we should act, etc.

That's what well-designed research is. I am not saying that yours was not, but you give no indication that it was.

Well, it's good to know that the accusations of trafficking are being investigated. Do you feel confident that the primary investigators will work to find the evidence that they need? In your last post, you felt that the US State Department did not do a good a job as they could have investigating Hunan scandal.

Secondly, can you provide links to any news articles or magazines-- even in Chinese -- that discusses the situation currently?

Perhaps I have mis-stated the dialogue used in the survey: A woman called an orphanage saying simply that she was a childless married woman, of middle income, desiring to adopt a child with her husband. No indication was offered as to her area of residence. Only when the director asked if she was a local resident would she indicate that her husband was a resident of the area (from this we learned which orphanages limit adoptions to their own areas). At no time was it indicated that both were from out of the area.

It would be great to personally visit each orphanage in person, in reality this is impractical. There is no hesitancy to conduct business on the phone, and I don't think it impacted the answers in the least.

Investigating trafficking is a very delicate enterprise -- one must gain trust of those involved, from a wide-variety of sources. It takes time.

Of course there are no Chinese articles detailing baby-buying by the orphanages, although there are occasional articles discussing impropriety by orphanage directors. I might put together a sampling of such articles for a future blog posting.

Hi Brian. I really feel this movie strikes a raw nerve among many in the adoption community.

It is interesting to watch how people justify any evils on their part, by shedding light on another person’s inadequacy.

The feeling that I came away with after watching this movie is that although many may find it hard to fight the saviour mentality, we must abide by the law. Without the law, people would continuously judge others to fulfill and justify their self-driven choices.

I personally feel that while the notion of cushioning all people from any hardships sounds wonderful, without these struggles in our world, we would not have the diversity and the heroes that we have.

Not everyone who is deprived or neglected grows up to be dysfunctional. Many triumph over tragedy and are there to help guide others as they stumble.

Morgan Freeman was a criminal by choosing to kidnap a child. He made a choice based on his own self-driven desires (and void) and then justified it with the idea that she would be better off with him.What is worse really? A kidnapper or a crack head!? And who gets to decide that? My guess is that legally the kidnapper would get the harsher punishment.

It seems that by the definition here of baby buying, that it has been going on for years in many forms. Let me explain what I see. I can tell you I know where the director/owner of my agency lives and she has made a huge profit from Chinese IA. She lives in a house that I could never afford. I can tell you that the Chinese man who works for them and only them for 12 years in China is a rich man by Chinese standards. He owns two homes and a car, where when he started to work for them he was poor by his own admission to our group. The orphanage director walked away with $18,000 in cash the day our group received our babies, as have orphanage directors since the early 1990's I pray it was put to the use it was intended. So did I and your family "buy" our children, by your standards, YES! Did others make a good living off the adoption process from the start of IA in China, YES! I find it odd that there is only an uprising when it is suggested that the birth parents, the poorest of the chain, are given a piece of the money that has changed hands for all of these babies that go to IA. If I had a choice to give my money to all of these people in the "legal" process or to hand the $20,000 to my dd birth family, I would cut out all of the middle people and give it to them. So to me it is just a matter of who is making the money off IA, the directors of agencies, the workers for those agencies who have a job, the guides in China and maybe even the orphanage directors themselves. To answer the question do I feel what I did is right when I am in the dark alone with my thoughts, yes, no regrets. I watch that baby in her bed and know that even if all of what you say is true, yes she is better off in my loving home than in an orphanage or in a home that is unable to feed her or care for her basic needs because of the condition of their lives that they would have to take money for her to survive. I know some will blast me as being a AP who will do anything to justify my having my child but I know in my heart and morals I did the right thing for my child. I would do it again tomorrow. I just do not buy that there are huge numbers of domestic families waiting for orphanages to give them a child or that they are being turned away. Almost all domestic adoption is done outside the orphanage system.

I guess only time will tell if there is more proof to come or not. You are unable to share but continue to write about it.

Again and again - You are truly leaping here. 1st - there is no legal way for a parent to abandon their child in China- Parents choosing to abandon a child are completely different than the individuals in this movie. In the US,there is a system in place (DEFACS) that often severs the rights of parents through court order and or personal counseling that leads to parents giving up their parenting rights. This is to the benefit of the child. Yes Morgan Freeman was wrong to kidnap this child, but again you are absolutely insane to compare adoptive parents to this situation. In no way have I seen any evidence that children in this country adopted from China were abducted from their birth families. Shame on you for making waiting families feel guilt shame or doubt to the authenticity of their child's abandonment. You may say you are a researcher but reputable publications would not publish your research or LEAPS of assertions.

Who said this"Not everyone who is deprived or neglected grows up to be dysfunctional. Many triumph over tragedy and are there to help guide others as they stumble."Yes people survive horrific things- Does that mean we should turn our backs and say - It will make them stronger. The terrible tragedy of Gone Baby Gone- a DEFACS system that was not utilized and one that many times does not sever parental rights. Drug addicts should not be allowed to raise children. As someone who has seen the tragedies of children neglected and or abused, most of them do not triumph over these unless someone steps up to the plate and provides the child with love safety and security.

What I am trying to say is that it's unclear wheter your survey was developed in a statistically and culturally sound manner. As to the evidence on baby trafficking--well, we haven't seen that. (I do stand corrected on your caller not being from the appropriate province.)

The info that you glean from your finding ads is much stronger in my opinion. But again, that assumes that you have a full and complete set of ads and that you aren't doing much statistical manipulation of the data.

Again, you are making strong charges, which I feel should be backed up with strong evidence. And until you can provide such evidence, I hope others will take your posts with an enormous grain of salt.

There is no doubt that Amanda was a horrible mother, and should not have been a parent. The movie makes that abundantly clear.

However, the point of the movie (and my essay) is to show that there are laws in place that should have been utilized. It is interesting to me that whenever an adoption program is threatened with closure for corruption (Cambodia, Guatemala, etc.) it is the adoption families that scream the loudest for it to remain open. "Think of the children!" is the cry. It seems to me that when corruption is discovered (such as bribing birth families to relinquish their children) the adoptive families should be screaming the loudest for the program to close and investigations to occur. Sadly, this is rarely the case.

When an adoptive family discovered that the Cambodia program was buying and stealing kids, tehy worked to bring it to the attention of Government officials. AS it became known in the Cambodian adoption community, this family started receiving horrid e-mails, phone calls, and threats from fellow adopting families worried that the program would close before they received their children. The most virulent attacks came from within the adoption community.

If we really worry about the children, we should all work to insure that the program is ethically run, and work to stop it if it isn't.

My first survey of 40 orphanages was based on a random sampling of the entire orphanage population. Later, I redid the survey contacting every orphanage in the IA program. Thus, there is no question is it "statistically sound," as there was no extrapolation involved -- every orphanage was contacted.

Adoptive families have already had two cases of illegal activities by China's orphanages -- the Hunan scandal where over a 1,000 children were purcahsed and adopted internationally, and the recent Shaoyang story where children were stolen by the Family Planning office and adopted internationally. My question, as it relates to the China adoption program, is when will adoptive families begin to recognize a growing pattern of problems?

You say: Adoptive families have already had two cases of illegal activities by China's orphanages -- the Hunan scandal where over a 1,000 children were purcahsed and adopted internationally, and the recent Shaoyang story where children were stolen by the Family Planning office and adopted internationally.

I thought only one of the "stolen" children was adopted internationally, were there more? Can you tell us again why the children were "stolen" from their families by the Family Planning officials or were the families never told why the children were "stolen"?

The Gaoping story involved about 30 children taken at various times since 2001. They were taken because they were not registered with the Family Planning office. If we had more detailed information as to their birth dates, etc., it would be possible to determine if they were adopted internationally. The one child we do have that information for was adopted to the Eastern part of the U.S.

I am assuming your question is a serious one, so I will address it with that assumption. Much would depend, of course, how long my duahgter had been with her birth family, how long she had been with us, how old she was, etc. One the far end: If she was very young, and I had had her for say a year or less, I would definitely investigate bringing her back to her birth family.

But if we discovered this after she had formed language skills, had been with us for several years, etc., then I would work to form an open adoption relationship with the BP and allow my daughter the option to have whatever relationship she wanted to have.

It bothers me that there is so much blame attached to us as their parents as if we are totally in the wrong here. For one thing, I had no idea, when we adopted in 1999 that this was even a possibility. Secondly, I have always felt her adoption will be a mixed bag for her (not for us!) in that we have taken her away from her culture of birth. I have always, always been very aware of that. Our decision, at that time, was based on our understanding that she was most likely given up because her family could not afford to care for her or could not pay the fine to raise her when boy was needed for social security. I certainly think this is a big issue and if I were adopting now, I would be looking very closely at the circumstances behind the child's availability.I do think that most of us, however, are motivated by trying to do something good in the world.

I have read your blog for a long time and I have always respected what you write. I was appreciative of your blog posts about Hunan, during that crisis. We were about to receive our referral during that trail.

However, recently I feel that your posts are becoming sensational, and you really only have the one subject these days. I rememember your stance on the excellence of the China program, and even during the Hunan trial and saga, you did still mostly stick to that opinion. We all know that SN adoptions are probably the way the program is heading. But you seem to be becoming very fundamental in your stance and repeatedly bring up baby trafficking, baby selling and abduction over and over, so much so that all of a sudden, it seems as though you are saying that all adoptions from China in recent years are tainted with corruption. Last year it was a case of having to be concerned that some trafficking was going on, but mostly that adoption from China was above board. Fast forward a year or more and you are saying that China is the most corrupt and baby traficking is widespread!

You have put so much fear and anxiety into the China adoption community (well the ones that read and research on line etc) Suggesting that our children might be stolen, and if we *only* had them for a year or so we should return them.. well the thought is devastating.

You obviously know that your children are adopted and there is no worry of this being the case for you, so it is easy perhaps for you to be the knight in shining armour who stops NSN adoptions from China, and breaks the BIG STORY about how there is a huge "trafficking" problem in China, about to break just as the spotlight is on China funnily enough! I am rambling here as I have so many thoughts swirling around in my head. We were so careful when we were researching countries to adopt from, and your very own blog posts at the time and until recently led us to believe that adoption from china was less risky in that regard.

If a big news story broke, and it turned out that our DD was in face trafficked, and we had to return her it would completely devastate her as we are her mama and Dada, and she is firmly part of our family. She would have no memory of her first family as she was *abandoned* at only a few days old.

If trafficking is going on then I do feel that it should be halted and the people punished accordingly, however with the very few referrals and such a long wait it would not seem as though there is a need for such widespread trafficking as you seem to suggest.

What percentage of babies adopted from Hunan (just as an example) would you guess have been bought in the last few years. Are you saying 80-90% or are you saying 10-20%?

I refuse to believe that we have done something wrong, and we adopted our DD with all the best of intentions, we would never want a baby at any cost. But I don't want to look at her every day and feel sick in my heart that she was ordered for the adoption market. Whivh is what you are alluding to.

How would you feel if this all happened when you had your daughters in the early days, and you were completely in love with them. Broken hearted would be my guess.

What a question!Although it seems sacrcastic in nature, I agree that an open adoption plan would be the best for all parties involved unless the child was only newly placed in the home and had not yet formed an attachment.A child belongs first and foremost to the birth parents. If that is not possible, an open relationship should be the next route.

First, a distinction made in Hunan bears repeating here: Trafficking does not mean stolen. I feel the problem of stealing children for adoption is fairly rare, although as the recent Hunan story shows, not to be disregarded. The fact is, there are several "suspicious" orphanages when it comes to Family Planing confiscation, but overall the numbers involved are pretty low.

A bigger problem is purchasing babies for adoption.

What percentage of adoptions in Hunan involve trafficked children? I can only tell you that more than half of Hunan's orphanages were involved or are involved in trafficking in the past five years. Six were publicly outed, but the problem was much more wide-spread. Many of them continue to this day to purchase children.

The point of this blog essay was not to make parents feel "guilty" (although I feel a family entering the program now should be aware of the issues), but rather to help families realize that this is a complicated issue. Adoptive families are not bad. They ARE trying to do good things, but SOMETIMES a family is so driven by their desire to adopt that they discount the other facets of the situation -- judging the quality of birth parents, discounting the quality of life in China, rationalizing unethical behavior, etc., in order to make their decision look better. That is what I am speaking against.

I would love to write about something other than the trafficking, but the problem is that the trafficking involves so much about China adoption -- adoption numbers, abandonment rates, finding locations, birth notes -- there are few subjects that it doesn't impact. "Fundamentalist" in my views? I read one comment that wished I would go back to the "old Brian" that would write about the good things. I would love that also -- it makes for better business. But until these problems are resolved, I find that hard to do.

I would love to come out (and have almost done so many times) and release the audio tapes, e-mails, etc. that I have regarding the trafficking. But to do so pre-maturely would not solve anything. So, while some might angrily call for me to "put up or shut up", I realize that we will only get once chance to make changes in this program, so I will wait for the right moment. Then you can decide if you feel this is a small problem or a big one. You all know where I stand on it.

What about children who enter the system through hospitals and police stations - who would benefit financially then? Do you believe that a large percentage of children are still abandoned anonymously and funneled through those channels to the SWIs?

I agree that there are legal / moral /ethical problems regarding trafficking of children in China– not sure if there are more now than before and to what level IA plays in to all this. I also agree that this needs to be addressed / investigated by our state department - I doubt that any ongoing investigation would be public knowledge or interim reports issued.

You have said before that 10X more children are unofficially absorbed in the community that are eligible or placed in domestic or IA. But your inference recently is that all IA children are all wanted by birth families, stolen under cloak of darkness and these children really are not abandoned. I and I'm sure you don’t really believe this. Abandonment in big numbers is real. By it ugly nature, the family who abandons the child at the front steps of a police station, train station or with a local woman who will ensure that the child gets to an orphanage is the same thing. What happens next is the issue. When dose a finders fee meet the definition of trafficking?And how is that any different than a US adoption agency offing more pre-natal support to an unwed mother in Texas to place her child in Ill rather than in TX?

I just came back to post after reading your blog and all of the following comments- only to see you NOW post that you wish people to only discuss a MOVIE plot???????

Are you serious? Obviously you have eluded to major issues in trafficking in China in your comments and blog here. You MUST understand no one here gives a rats @@@ about a MOVIE discussion in light of what you are saying about the state of China IA? (That is a little like discussing the Perfect Storm movie plot during hurricane Katrina, don't you think?)

I came back after gathering my thoughts to ask you some honest questions in light of what YOU had posted that had NOTHING to do with the movie plot. Amazing! Two thumbs down, WAAAAY down, Brian..........

I have never written or inferred that "that all IA children are all wanted by birth families, stolen under cloak of darkness and these children really are not abandoned." What I have said is that over the past five years the number of legitimately abandoned children has been decreasing, and that some (not all) orphanages are resorting to creative means to keep their numbers (and cash flow) up.

I have also said that further discussion of which orphanages, how it is being done, how many children are purchased versus found is pre-mature. The reality is that an indepth discussion would only result in families calling their agencies, agencies calling the CCAA, and the CCAA doing damage control such as we saw in Hunan.

In my opinion, it is better to wait until enough evidence has been gathered to convince world governments and adopting families that there is or isn't a problem. This is being done now by independent organizations, and we will wait for their results.

I most certainly did answer the question, as clear as day. Are you saying my response didn't make it to you and is lost in cyber space or are you suggesting I didn't answer your question clearly or to your liking? I know I answered it very clearly and specifically. If you didn't receive the response I will write one later today as I'm off to spend time with my child.Sorry if this comes 2x, I hit submit twice because it didn't seem like it registered.

"In my opinion, it is better to wait until enough evidence has been gathered to convince world governments and adopting families that there is or isn't a problem. This is being done now by independent organizations, and we will wait for their results."

Brian, well that is good to hear. Can you verify, not the names of the organizations, but that they are not in any way associated with the promotion of international adoption? I think an agency group investigating this would be unwise. There are groups who advocate for the welfare of children. They might be in a better position to press for an investigation

Is there a reason why you won't simply and clearly name these "well respected news agencies"?And can you explain why you are going to news agencies rather than directly to governmental officials or elected representatives?

Well, the U.S. government IS doing something in Vietnam right now, so I think you should reevaluate your mistrust of government agencies. While the press can bring your concerns to light, only the government is empowered to take the kinds of actions that will resolve the issue and ensure adoptive parents that adoptions are being handled ethically and in accordance with Hague. If you are implying that there is no political will to confront unethical IA practices - that may very well be so. Do you think a news story is enough to change that will? Especially now when the Olympics and Tibet are the subjects of interest? The consensus seems to be that China will re-sequester itself before it ever gives in to worldwide pressure to change its human rights practices. In regards to IA I think the only avenue for change will be individual governments halting entrance of children who may not be authentic orphans. The government (U.S. or others) is going to have to be in on this one way or the other....I say better sooner than later. Because you really have no other choice than to hope they do a good job.

If you truly want to rectify the situation of baby trafficking you will stop being mysterious about your evidence and your plans and you will just deal with it - for the sake of the children.

I haven't seen Gone, Baby, Gone, but I plan to. My brother is a Heroin addict. About 6 or 7 years ago his girlfriend became pregnant. The first thing I did was call DHS to report that she was using and pregnant I also offered to become a foster parent for the child. I NEVER got a call back. The "girlfriend" had a mis-carriage and I never had to worry about it again. I thank God every day that my brothers never had children. I can understand what the character in the movie went through that would make him think stealing that baby was a good idea. I still couldn't have done it in a million years.

My daughter is only 3 and she says things like, "my baby will have hair like mine" or I like so and so "because they are llike me" I understand how valuable being raised in her culture would be to her. I expose her as much as possible but come on I can't submerge her in it daily as she would be if she still lived in China. Yes, she's well fed, well clothed, loved beyond belief...but she's missing a piece of herself.

Do I think Brian is trying to make parents feel guilty about the choice they made to adopt?...NO! I think like most of us when he adopted his daughters he did so with the best information he had at the time. I don't think any of us would change what we did - we all love are children completely and totally!!

I think Brian is simply trying to educate future adoptive parents with the best information he has now so that they can make informed decisions.

Of course he can't quote his sources...China is still a Communist country...freedom of speech is something we are lucky to have in the U.S. and I think we're all taking it for granted. Brian must protect his sources!

Could Brian have someone visit all of the orphanages in China to inquire adopting domestically? Sure, who wants to head up the fundraising, because I don't think there are enough finding ads in China to pay for that research!

It is obvious that you are not posting comments that others make that encourage others to think about your so called research- and it you can be considered as respectable and serious. Good luck with your hyped up National Enquirer writing- Used to take you seriously- not anymore. Permanently signing off. Doubt you'll post it though.

But I have overwhelming evidence that my daughter's finder was paid a large sum of money for bringing her to the orphanage. I believe her orphanage, which I am not going to name here, buys babies. I'm not going to post any kind of further evidence here because I am not going to jeopardize my daughter's privacy or the sources through which I got this information. But I will say this: potential adoptive parents have to be prepared to work with my daughter's orphanage. You don't get to choose which one you get.

I know--trust me--that this information is hard to hear. It's *awfully* hard to hear when you know it's about your own baby. And I'm not telling people what to do with their adoption plans. But I think we need to start listening and making decisions without our heads in the sand.

Please contact me about the evidence you have. I can use your help in this.

Anonymous #2: I post any comment that is coherant and makes a point (even it, like yours, a small one). I'm sorry you feel my research to be like the National Enquirer, but sometimes you have to realize that it will be frustraqting to have attitudes changed and paradyms altered. Usually readers like what I write when I affirm what they feel, and hate what I write when it contradicts their cherished opinions. If you have anything to bring to the table that shows my research or conclusions are faulty, I welcome the feedback.

What I would like "done" is pretty simple -- that all the orphanges in China do the job they were designed to do -- provide care and facilitate adoptions of true orphans. I would like them to start viewing orphans as human beings, not a commodity. To stop collaborating with Family Planning offices to arbitrarily enforce one-child registration rules in order to provide children to the orphanage to adopt. To stop paying doctors and others to ask pregnant women if they would be willing to sell their child. To demolish any payment of "bonuses" to orphanage workers to seek out families in their villages, and even approach people on the street to recruit children into the orphanages with "rewards."

China is not a communist country it is socialist country. You may want to update your research. BS (appropraite initials) is a shock jock of the worst kind. If he has info that can be used to further protect children and women he should be organizing and mobilizing in order to do so not writing on an arbitrary blog. The China adoption community is a powerful group and a large group and would be willing to participate in assisting the in the betterment of children in China.

He never did answer the question if he would put his kids back on a plane if he found out their adoptions were not legit!

When YOU solict people on their private blogs, as you did to me, to purchase a "finding ad" through you do you authenticate that this ad is legitimate? Do YOU certify that the child is not stolen or trafficked or do you just take the $40 and hope all the info is correct? If you are sure this is such a wide spread problem then does that make you part of the problem by providing another layer of hope to adoptive parents that the policies were followed in the adoption process of their child?

I am curious as to your opinion of the difference between the current info on the Family Planning Office giving children that are not registered directly to the orphanage and its general job of controlling family size through whatever means possible. How is the one reprehensible and its others practices not?

Also, with China spending the last few years telling the UN to "take a hike" regarding Darfur and the current media fervor over Tibet, do you really believe that the Chinese government is going to make changes to its adoption programs that it doesn't want to, regardless of what "new" information gets out?

Lastly, don't you believe that with the slow down to almost 4 years and the tighter restrictions on parents that China is doing its best to make the necessary adjustments without shutting down completely?

Additionally, he erroneously quotes me as asserting that the Chinese orphanage program is “a corrupt system… driven by money, and there’s no check and balance to the greed.” This statement was made in what I thought was an off-the-record conversation discussing China’s governmental structure, not its adoption program. I have frequently and publicly written that I believe the Chinese adoption program to be one of the most ethically run in the world. A family leaving the U.S. knows who their child will be, exactly what fees will be paid, and where they will be on any given day while in China. Few other international programs run this predictably and effeciently.

THis is from your letter to the editor in 2006 re: the Washington Post article on stolen Children in China. YOu have certainly flip flopped on this issue!!!!

I find any Family Practice that directly denies a woman her right to have a child reprehensible. I fully support the levying of reasonable fees, but forced abortions and forced seizures I find wrong.

Yes, I think that China responds to international pressure to make changes. It was international attention that prevented China from responding more forcibly in Tibet. In fact, one can argue that only international pressure brings change in China.

And question 3: No, I think in fact China is not slowing down the program intentionally, but is being forced to slow down by declining children. Thus, I think if China could, it would purchase children for the next 50 years if it meant keeping the money coming into their Social Welfare programs.

My job is to provide information to adoptive families about their children. An important part of that is the photos and information provided in the finding ads. In addition I have located birth families, foster families, finders, and a host of other information for families. Simply put, if a family wants to obtain information about their child, they come to me. If I find out a family's child was trafficked, I ask them if they want to know. If they don't, that is fine. I, as an adoptive parent, want to know everything about my children -- good, bad or ugly -- and my job is to provide all parents that resource.

AM: To declare that China is a socialist country ignores China's Constitution, which states that "The Communist Party of China is the country’s sole political party in power." (http://www.china.org.cn/english/Political/26143.htm)

You can argue whether China's government operates in a socialist or communistic manner, but to declare China a socialist country is patently absurd.

Additionally I addressed your question on 4/11/08 at 5:53. You can read my response there.

The emotional reaction of many adoptive families is to deny problems are occurring -- this has been demonstrated repeatedly in countries such as Guatemala, Vietnam, Cambodia and Columbia (and now in China). Families (generally speaking) refuse to see the facts when presented, seek to marginalize and demonize the messenger of those facts, and rationalize facts to make them seem meaningless. Thus, instead of working as the "powerful group and a large group" that is "willing to participate in assisting the in the betterment of children in China," in fact the opposite is usually true. Waiting families petition governments to keep corrupt programs open (i.e. Guatemala or Cambodia) until their adoptions are completed, some agencies seek to continue to paint rosy pictures of corrupt programs, and governments are reticent to rock the boat and incur the wrath of their citizens. Thus, there are very few individuals who speak up for change.

Let's get back to the movieGone Baby GoneI can not believe I watched this terrible movie. It is a movie that I suspect will intrigue predators and encourage this behavior. The scenes are horrific and the comparison of IA children to this type of brutality is unbelievable. I believe your family may be correct in their worry as to where you may go after death. I believe the shock factor and comparison will indeed show the real flaws of your research and contaminated thought process. I agree that you are a deep part of a problem in China - making money off of information that should be free. You gain more money from this than a foster family receives in one month. All readers - please send your money to a worthy cause.Love Without BounderiesGrace Hope For ChildrenHalf the SkyStarfishand many many other programs.

I am sorry you feel that everything in this world should be free, but that is an entitlement opinion that some people carry. I too feel that my food and home should be free, as well as my medical care and schooling. For the life of me I don't get the taxes thing!

But I totally support your call to have families send donations to worthy causes! On that we certainly agree!!!

Brian,The waiting parents are in a desperate mindset and not ready to hear what it is you are saying.Gone Baby Gone is above their thinking at this point. People do not recognize their unethical behaviours when they are so ready to do what needs to be done to get a child.What you are doing here is telling the truth and advocating for the people who do not have a say in this.Please look beyond this desperate attempt from waiting parents to fulfill their desires.The law is the only way in which corruption should be handled. Gone Baby Gone is an excellent example of how some can justify criminal behaviours if it means they get what they want. In the end they have to live with their conscience and you will live with knowing you did the only appropriate thing.Keep up the great work!

As a parent of a child adopted from Hunan during the "scandal years", I follow this story very closely. What I find, as a rule, is so many people on different boards posting half facts, not really knowing what the truth is. Just a few weeks ago on my own SWI board, someone posted that she read on another group board that children from "Hunan" were kidnapped, leaving it quite open to translation as to whether or not our SWI was included in the kidnapping, as well as the trafficing. Many on our board thought that the poster was making an "undercover" accusation" about our SWI. This starts rumors.

I am also like to think the best of people until proven otherwise. You know, the innocent until proven guitly theory. While we might have accusations made on this blog, we have to remember that that's all they are at this point. While evidence can appear overwhelming, we all know that innocent people have been sent to death row over false testimony, and evidence. Please, let China have some sort of due process before we declare the whole adoption program corrupt.

I find it somewhat hypocritical when we look at the adoption process in the US - familes are chosen over other families to adopt because their hair is blonde, their house is bigger, or their picture is cuter. Not to mention the money that persepctive adoptive families dish out with no guarentee of a baby. Don't get me started on the child welfare system.

I also question the motive behind the trafficing. If a baby is moved from an SWI that is not a part of IA, to an SWI that is a part of IA, and the receiving SWI pays a fee for that child's past care, is that trafficing? What if the director of the SWI really cares about these babies and uses the IA money to better his SWI?Where do we draw the line at corrupt versus caring? How do we know the intentions insides people's hearts?

The people I feel the worst for are the adoptive parents waiting in this long line, who started out in the process truely believing that there was a need in China. That they were helping. Not one of those parents wants any child to be abducted from her family. It's also sad to think that our demand is now causing supply issues that might cause a women to decide to sell her baby when she wouldn't of done that in the first place. I don't think anyone in the USA wants to be part of the problem.

I saw the movie - I think it is a sad stretch to compare that to IA in China.

Certainly I would not consider the transfer of a child from one facility to another as trafficking; in fact, it occurs frequently among SWIs. Trafficking involves more the source of the children -- where they came from, who was paid to bring them into the system.

And I totally agree that China should have their chance to explain what is occurring.

I have to disagree that the movie, however, has no bearing on IA. Although the movie itself doesn't address the IA program, the motives and rationalizations I find repeated in many adoption programs when faced with corruption -- excuses being made for the way things are, even when clear laws are broken. It was that parallel that I hoped to bring to the table.

Been following these comments for the past couple days. I am wondering Brian-how much faith can we APs put in those finding ads? Our dd was found in 2002. When do you think things may have begun to change with regard to China's IA program-or do you think there has always been a problem with trafficking on some level?What is your perspective on why the wait dropped from 14 months in 2002-2003 to as short as 6 months in 2004-2005? Was any of this related to what you perceive to be the current problems.

Honestly the thought that haunts me every night is not that our dd was trafficked but that her birth mother may simply have had no say in what was a family decision taken out of her hands by other relatives. That would be bad enough.

Do you certify that the information you provide in your finding ads that you promote is legitimate and true? Do you do any research to ask the person named if they really found the child or if that was made up?

Most evidence suggests that trafficking began in late 2002 in some areas, a bit later in others. I have not seen any evidence to show it occurred before 2002, but it may have.

This, of course, doesn't imply that every child was trafficked.

The finding ads are valuable because they contain the earliest photos of the child, and they further support the official story fo the child's finding. Obviously in the case of a trafficked child, the finding data would not be accurate.

I agree with the fear comment. My hostility is fear that the daughter I brought home 3 months ago may have been taken or bought from her birth mother and how can I live with that????? I trusted the agency, I trusted the CCAA, and I trusted the finding ad that everything was above board and now to learn possibly otherwise shakes me to the core. You can't put out a small snip of fearful information and not help the people who read your blog!!!!

Brian, I really enjoyed the film and found it very thought provoking.However, I found your critique somewhat ironic. You analogize the film’s antagonists to adoptive parents, and conclude your review with the admonishment that “Whether it is the law of the town, or the International Law of the Hague Agreement, it is the law that all of us must respect.” Yet parents adopting from China clearly abide by the law by undergoing rigorous processes governed by China, their own respective countries and the International Law of the Hague Agreement.

Whereas, you, on the other hand, are much like the film’s antagonists, in that you seem to have become frustrated with the governing bodies (in this case the CCAA and the U.S. State Department) and have taken it upon yourself to operate outside this governing framework in an effort to advance a cause which you perceive as noble and just and in the best interest of children.

I understand that, but don't know what else I can do. We went back and forth how how to handle it, and in the end I decided that families should know that problems exist. That public acknowledgment has brought other families forward who have helped bring more information forward, and so on. I am confident the complete picture will be known.

If you would like to e-mail me privately, I can discuss your child's specifics.

I wish to draw the parallels between adoptive families in general, not specific to the China program (that is why I said the China community was beginning to confront them). At this point, individual families (like AM) must rely on the agencies, the CCAA, etc. However, when stories such as Hunan, the Dutch documentary, etc. are presented, many adoptive families seek to rationalize the motives of all involved, trying to find an excuse why we should accept it. "I don't care if the birth family got money," wrote one family, "since everybody else gets money." "Any birth mother that would sell her daughter shouldn't be a mother anyway," I've seen written about. All are legitimate points to consider (just as Elaine's crack habit), but in the end these offer no excuse.

How is being "stolen" by the family planning agency really any different than a couple being forced to give up a child because they cannot financially withstand the consequences of keeping the child (fines, loss of job, etc)?

I just find it somewhat amazing when what was always talked about was this utterly romantic depiction of a faceless woman leaving her child "to be found" as some sort of detached, altruistic act... but now when there is cold hard cash involved (either in forcing the abandonment or paying FOR the abandonment) you and everyone else gets so up in arms.

The one-child policy, and using financial leverage to force family planning choices is just as evil as family planning agencies directly taking babies and giving them to the orphanages. Why is it that the former has always been so easily accepted but the latter is so morally repugnant??

You bring up a very interesting idea, and one that I cannot easily discount. In this particular case, however, some subtleties do exist.

First, the child involved in the Dutch broadcast was not an over-quota child, but an unregistered child. Her parents we married in the village, but not officially registered. These issues revolve around the fact that official registration (or a marriage or child) costs money, and many rural families choose to not pay. Thus, they throw a marriage party (which for them makes it official in the eyes of their friends and community) but avoid paying the government (who few really respect). This was the case with Yang Li Bing. They had married by tradition, but not in the governments eyes.

Thus, their daughter was not an over-quota child, but simply an unregistered one. There are millions of children in the same position.

The taking of the children by force, or the levying of crippling of fines, however, do the same thing as you point out: Often force a family to give up a child they would not otherwise. In that respect you make an excellent point.

i think you're right that many of the apparent realities are justified away. considering what many AP's have been through even before the A process, i frankly don't blame them. AP's are struggling to make the best out of what has been sold as the world's most succesful, secure and reliable IA system in the world. AP's work through agencies, and need to have confidence and trust in them. i hold them responsible for communicating w/, monitoring of, and working the chinese system. call me selfish, but i feel i speak for many in saying i'm not out to save the world- i want to secure my family and move along in my life.

You said "The taking of the children by force, or the levying of crippling of fines, however, do the same thing as you point out: Often force a family to give up a child they would not otherwise. In that respect you make an excellent point."

This point is exactly why I have a hard time believing why you would think that "exposing" the corruption within China would force them to change. This was going on LONG before money or IA was involved. Simply because most of the same forces and situations exist that will keep it going on regardless of money or IA - namely China's desire to limit their population growth.

Also, you argue for domestic adoption; however, you admit that familial adoption is preferable within the culture and baby buying exists within the country that are completely separate from orphanages and therefore much less expensive. How does or what right does Western opinions and belief systems change those dynamics?

My emphasis has been on the purchase of children by orphanages solely to provide international adoption families with children in order to obtain adoption donations. Many families inside China would adopt the childrenin theorphanages if the orphanages did not charge what to many families is 3 to 5 years annual salaries. In other words, because they can adopt children internationally, many (most) orpanages deny access of these children to domestic families. These families are forced, then, to look at the black market to obtain children. Therefore, any discussion of baby trafficking inside China by definition involves the IA program, because the adoption of healthy children outside China removes options for adopting children inside China.

Would things change dramatically if the IA program stopped? Of course not. The trafficking problem is much larger than the IA program. But the IA program is part of the larger (much larger) puzzle.

I sence that the jist of your message is that there is no longer a need for IA. Particularly for the placement of NSN children.

The declining number of childen placed for IA already foretells the demise of this program.But I belive that at the end of the day the orphanges benifit from IA on many levels particularly for those "unadoptable". I don't belive that you can have a vibale program for one (SN) without the other (NSN) but time will tell.

My only hope is that any expose' is not done with the intention of the writer getting a pulizer - No one involved ( our daughters) wins unless the coverage is balanced and not written for a 1 page NYT Sunday piece.

There seems to be a lot of focus on waiting parents. Those of us with children already home are concerned as well, though it seems to be hushed up a bit more by BTDT parents. Maybe they (we) all don't want to know. We fear someone's going to take our child or our child will be "one of the ones" and will hate us and place blame on us.

I'd hate to be a waiting parent facing this but put yourselves in our place...we have our children. They are a part of our families and our lives. My first daughter was adopted in 2001 - supposedly before all of this happened and from a very small SWI that has never had many referrals and still does not. The other child was adopted in 2005. Is one trafficked and one not? Will we ever know?

Does the fact that we have our children give us more right to worry? I don't know. But it is incredibly difficult to look at the faces of our children and wonder...

Brian,Keep doing what you are doing: Shining light in dark places. You are right. You are 100% right. Right now China AP's don't want to hear anything bad, they are defensive and scared. Rightly so, it's scary stuff. No one wants to think they've done something wrong or their adoption was unethical.

Knowing the sometimes hard truth of IA, and then taking action to change it, is the only way to keep a program open in the long haul. History proves that. You are doing the right thing and you are a solitary voice sharing very unpopular news which you are bound to get attacked for. Please don't let the anger stop you.

China is ridden with fraud, and many in the field know it. I only hope change can happen by people opening their eyes to mend it before China IA comes to a grinding halt.

Anonymous said "Does the fact that we have our children give us more right to worry? I don't know. But it is incredibly difficult to look at the faces of our children and wonder..."

I agree 100%! It must be hard for those waiting to adopt, however they are not in love yet with a child. They are in love with a notion.My peace comes from the idea that if we work together now for truth and change, this must be better for our children.I often wonder what she would want, I listen to adult adoptees and then I make a decision on how she would want me to handle things.We have to recognize that one day it will be our kids on the computer comparing stories, details, information and discussing how we handled issues of corruption.I want to reveal all that we can now so that it is us that feels the impact and we can then pass it on to our kids in a much more gentle way.They deserve the truth and it will feel much better coming from us.

Brian - why are you doing this? I'm terrified your crusade will shut down even the SN pilot program we are in the process of participating in. China hates to lose face, and with the Olympics that is exactly what you are trying to make them do. How do you KNOW this to be the case? Why aren't you talking to JCIS about it? You are being cruel to the children in need of families. What will you say to your daughters from China when they realize China shut down adoptions because of YOU and all those SN kids didn't get adopted? I hope you can live with yourself - I know I couldn't. I wish I'd never given you money for your "research" - believe me, it won't happen again!

Brian, I'm curious. It has been my understanding that when Chinese nationals adopt domestically, they are really only interested in very young babies so that the fact of the adoption is not so obvious.

That said, do you think that the older children [as in 4-5-6-7-8, etc] in the various orphanages are in the same position as you seem to view the infants---potentially bought or seized by the planning officials?

Or is their presence in an orphanage "legitimate"---ie really abandoned by birth families, etc? And do you view there as being any difference if the child in question is a boy or a girl?

In other words, if an adoptive family only seeks to adopt a child with SN or an older child who is simply, not an infant, or a older boy, can they feel that their child was appropriately available for adoption?

I don't see much evidence of baby-buying occurring for children that age, and since their adoptability is greatly reduced, I would assume (barring any direct evidence) that they came to teh orphanage ethically. Of course, a child that old will have memories of her own.

Once when I saw a small baby, maybe 8-9 months left on the sidewalk. He was filthy and just sitting on the ground. I watched him for a few minutes and another child finally came and got him and left. I wondered what sort of future he had. I wondered how many parents in China work all year and hardly see their kids in the hopes they can get an education and better life than they had. I wonder how many that sell their children or abandon them do so hoping for a better life for them. I wonder how many impoverished parents would let me adopt their child and take them to the West for an education and better life. I bet a lot of them would let me take that child. Most parents would want a better life for their child. I once read an account of a train leaving a station bound for the Nazi death camps. As it pulled away a woman tossed her baby from the train into a crowd of people standing nearby. The child was caught by a woman who took it home and raised it as her own. The overwhelming hope she had for her child and for her future was bigger to her mother than her fear of losing the child.

Well, RQ says many things that appear to come from thin air. I'm sure she has never spoken to a single finder, so she has no idea what she is talking about. I have spoken with hundreds of finders, and I can tell you that no examination is done. A short report is filled out, a signature or finger print is taken, and that is it.

Anonymous said "...Most parents would want a better life for their child. I once read an account of a train leaving a station bound for the Nazi death camps. As it pulled away a woman tossed her baby from the train into a crowd of people standing nearby. The child was caught by a woman who took it home and raised it as her own. The overwhelming hope she had for her child and for her future was bigger to her mother than her fear of losing the child."

Excuse me-- are you equating life in a poor country with being on a train to the death camps?

You say (and I know I'm summarizing) that the law is the law and it should be obeyed. We can't go around kidnapping children from their birth families, even if the birth parent is a drug addict as in the movie or beating the child to death...etc, etc. We should follow the proper procedures in those cases, no matter what. No gray area for you I guess, only black and white.

So in the case of the unregistered child taken by force and adopted in the US, are the birth parents not criminals also? Isn't it the law that they register their marriage and register their child? But they did not. And the consequence was that they lost their child.

I'm not saying I agree with that law or agree with the removal by force. My point is that you contradict yourself in saying we all need to follow the law, no matter our motivations for breaking the law. What should the consequence be for those who do not? What if they can't pay the fine?

I would agree if the laws were administered and prosecuted consistently. However, there are millions of unregistered children whose parents are never prosecuted or fined. Additionally, often when a fine is imposed, it is easily mitigated with a "gift" to some official. In other words, the entire one-child registration program is capricious. For that reason, I don't find too much fault with birth paretns who don't register. They have millions of examples.

The problem is when a authority seeks to make a name for himself with some party officials and make examples out of the residents in his jurisdiction. Although legal, the actions in these cases is immoral.